DEBATE BERTRAND RUSSELL COPLESTON EPUB
A Debate on the Argument from Contingency. Father F. C. Copleston and Bertrand Russell. Broadcast in on the Third Program of the British Broadcasting. The Copleston–Russell debate is a dispute concerning existence of God between Frederick Copleston and Bertrand Russell in a BBC broadcast. On January 28, the British philosophers F.C. Copleston and Bertrand Russell squared off on BBC radio for a debate on the existence of.
|Published:||9 October 2017|
|PDF File Size:||38.65 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||43.93 Mb|
It has a formal vice, in that it starts from finite existence as its datum, and admitting this to be contingent, it proceeds to infer an existent which is not contingent.
But as the premiss is contingent, the conclusion also must be contingent. This is only to be avoided by pointing out that debate bertrand russell copleston argument is analytic, that it proceeds from a complex proposition to one which is logically presupposed in it, and that necessary truths may be involved in those that are contingent.
But such a procedure is not properly a proof of the presupposition. If a judgement A presupposes another B, then, no doubt, if A is debate bertrand russell copleston, B is true. But it is impossible that there should be valid grounds for admitting A, which are not also grounds for admitting B.
Fr. Copleston vs. Bertrand Russell: The Famous BBC Radio Debate on the Existence of God
Person one may be reading it to help him to pass his exam; Person two debate bertrand russell copleston she is interested in the subject; Person three because he bought it by mistake, thinking it was a thriller, but decides to read it anyway; and Person four because she is the wife of the author and feels it is her duty to do so.
Each is given a different explanation of why they each Inuit is in New York: Although an individual explanation can be given why each Inuit is in New York, it debate bertrand russell copleston not make sense to then ask the one reason why the group as a whole are in New York.
It's quite all right if you mean by explaining it, simply finding a cause for it. Well, why stop at one particular object?
Why shouldn't one raise the question of the cause of the existence debate bertrand russell copleston all particular objects? Because I see no reason to think there is any. The whole concept of cause is one we derive from our observation of particular things; I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause whatsoever.
Well, to say that there isn't any cause is not the same thing as saying that we shouldn't look for a cause. The statement that there isn't any cause should come, if it comes at all, at the debate bertrand russell copleston of the inquiry, not the beginning.
- Bertrand Russell and F.C. Copleston Debate the Existence of God, | Open Culture
In any debate bertrand russell copleston, if the total has no cause, then to my way of thinking it must be its own cause, which seems to me impossible.
Moreover, the statement that the world is simply there if in answer to a question, presupposes that the question has meaning.
The Cosmological Argument: Russell vs. Copleston
No, it debate bertrand russell copleston need to be its own cause, what I'm saying is that the concept of cause is not applicable to the total. Then you would agree with Sartre that the universe is what he debate bertrand russell copleston "gratuitous"? Well, the word "gratuitous" suggests that it might be something else; I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all.
Well, I can't see how you can rule out the legitimacy of asking the question how the total, or anything at all comes to be there.
Copleston–Russell debate - Wikipedia
Why something rather than nothing, that is debate bertrand russell copleston question? The fact that we gain our knowledge of causality empirically, from particular causes, does not rule out the possibility of asking what the cause of the series is. If the word "cause" were meaningless or if it could be shown that Kant's view of the matter were correct, the question would be illegitimate I agree; but you don't seem to hold that debate bertrand russell copleston word "cause" is meaningless, and I do not suppose you are a Kantian.